Debate Summary - SPS vs. Wind/Solar/Hydrogen

Paul, sorry about the belatedness of this reply - Thanksgiving and all!

>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:07:10 -0500
>
> > It is quite clear after reading only the first few paragraphs that your
> > position is one of reducing humanity.
>
>Then you haven't read what I have written very carefully (or perhaps I
>have been not as clear as I would have hoped).
>
>I have -- I hope -- consistently:
>A. Recommended the development of self-replicating space habitats as an
>end in themselves (as well as for other reasons). This could support
>trillions of human lives (and other lives) in the solar system.

Very good recommendation in concept. However there are many intermediate
steps that need to be taken for this to be realized. Among them are getting
the public to back the idea in the first place and so generate demand for
space, and a tolerance for large sums of money to be spent upon it. Other
than that, you are preaching to the choir, here!

>B. Pointed out that SPS is an obsolete concept relative to likely
>alternatives available in the same time frame

All you have done is point out that you feel this way. TangoMan did a very
thorough job of deconstructing your views, yet you still cling to them.
Therefore, I must assume that your stance is emotionally based first, and
technically based second at best.

>C. Pointed out the (energy) waste in the current system and that it is
>cheaper to eliminate the waste than to produce more (energy), and that
>once you have eliminated waste, you save money and so are wealthier and
>can more easily do things like produce power locally or have spare time
>to design space habitats

Agreed 100% on making things more efficient - no one can argue that
unless... You reach a point of diminishing returns, and efforts are best
spent elsewhere.

>D. Pointed out the benefits of alternative lifestyles focused more on
>meaning and less on consumption, which also helps with other resource
>issues. And yes, for example, I'll go on record as saying SUVs probably
>aren't making people as happy (or safe) as such purchasers think they
>would (foru wheel drive is near useless in snow and ice without snow
>tires, they easily flip, they are expensive to operate, they often have
>less cargo space -- including less rated wieght capacity.). SUVs are a
>marketing scam for a light truck chassis which gets around US safety
>standards for roll over, crash worthiness, and damage to other passenger
>automobiles, as well as other energy efficiency standards. So, in the
>case of SUVs, yes I am saying SUVs are in general for most people an
>ill-informed purchase. :-) But I do not think that statement is
>anti-human, even if you might correctly characterise it as making a
>social statement. And, yes, I do think an argument for SPS that it will
>let people keep on doing anti-social things like drive SUVs (in most
>cases) -- see for example:
> http://cartalk.cars.com/info/suv/
> http://cartalk.cars.com/info/suv/alternatives.html
>"Having studied the facts ourselves, we don't think SUVs are completely
>useless. They do meet the needs of some people. But we do think that
>there are serious downsides to them. And we think that many people who
>buy them, don't need them."
>[I'll grant, like Tom and Ray, that SUVs might be good choices for some
>people who live where I do (a wilderness area with some bad and unplowed
>roads) due to higher ground clearance, but only if they have proper all
>weather or snow tires, not the cheap tires SUVs typically come with).]
>So, I think arguing for something like SPSs mainly so many people can
>keep up ill-informed and anti-social behaviors, for example, involving
>driving SUVs to their own, and more importantly, other people's and
>other creature's detriment, is not a good idea. (Volvo's SUV addresses
>some, but not all, of these issues, by the way.)

Here again you overlay your feelings and emotionally based arguments on the
reality of things. SUVS have been around for a long time, and they jsut
recently (in the scheme of things) became a hot item. Now, I live in the
mountains, and I have owned several SUVS, starting in the early eightites.
My desire to own them happened to stem from my love of four wheelin' and
truck camping. Many are the times where I have viewed a Lexus or some such
high end SUV with my friends and we all share a chuckle when we make the
statement: That thing will never see the dirt. So, are people buying them
that don't need them? Absolutely. Surely there are other modes of transport
that would answer their needs in an equivalent or better fashion, and for
far less money even before one tallies up the fuel (which isn't really that
much more than the standard conveyance, on average). They do help in the
snow if the driver realizes that four wheel (or all wheel) drive helps out
in keeping one from becoming stuck, and a little in handling, but doesn't
help you stop. Just about all the accidents I have seen involve a misplaced
confidence in an SUV's ability in this last regard. However, this being
said, I find my Subaru to be every bit as good on road snow as my jeeps and
trucks have been (though definitely not off road), and it cost far less in
every respect - from sticker to insurance. BUT - people buy SUV's because
they like them, and this spurred the manufacturers to build more and
agressively market them to maximize the product line. In other words, they
are responding to the fickle whims of consumers, not the other way around.
Your desire to see things as the big companies misleading the public hampers
your ability to make sound judgement on such topics as SPS.

If the public didn't have such a strong desire to be reactive (rather than
proactive), to ignore things until they are a huge and pressing issue that
must be dealt with right now, and so on (as exhibited by the ridiculous
surge in 'alternative medecine), then 'THE MAN' wouldn't find it so easy to
capatilize on the public's deliberate and carefully rehearsed ignorance. A
better thing to be promoting right now instead of down with the grid and
long live decentralized power, would be critical thinking course starting
early in education, robust science and technology programs, and just all
around better education. Then people would be willing and able to make
informed decisions about everything form when it is appropriate to own an
SUV, to what types of alternative energy options to pursue.

>
>You can try to spin this as anti-human etc. but really what is the point?

Your comment to reduce consumption in order to lower the problems associated
with power production is certainly anti-human. When one thinks this through,
it involves radical and massive changes in lifestyle for the entire
population, and absolutely a corresponding change in standard of living. Of
course, this change would be in the lower direction. I have heard various
things that fall into this category (my favorite the California school
systems holding back smarter kids cause it's not fair for them to leave
slower ones behind). All this does is reduce everything down to the least
common denominator, kills progress and any incentive towards progress, and,
if fully implemented, to the degeneration of humanity. Documenting this
assertion is far beyond the scope of this post or discussion group, but
should be pretty clear regardless.

Perhaps most importantly, it is also absolutely foolhardy to think that this
reduction idea could be sold to people as a whole, and in this respect a
moot issue.
>

In spite of all this, your opinions and research were very valuable to me.
It certainly helps to better understand one's own position (or perhaps
change it) when forced to explain or defend it against reasonable counters.
Thank you.

Val